New French Huguenots
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Prior to the 1680s there are about 1 million Huguenots in France, so they are not going to be deported en masse. That would be logistically impossible. Moreover, deporting just 1 % of them (10 000) would overwhelm the colony, which had 3000 settlers when Louis XIV took it over.
Louis was convinced at any rate that they were converting to Catholicism once he began cracking down on them. He was genuinely surprised when many fled after the edict of Nantes was revoked.
Louis was convinced at any rate that they were converting to Catholicism once he began cracking down on them. He was genuinely surprised when many fled after the edict of Nantes was revoked.
unprincipled peter
Donor
The northern part of New France (Canada) was a going concern. It had ceased being a net drain around 1700. It wasn't all that profitable, and had a low population which made it vulnerable. IF France had simply ceded ohio country to Britain, instead of fighting over it, New France would have remained New France. Britain didn't intend to take over Canada, and didn't want Louisiana Territory. Victory was so total that Britain was able to kick France off the continent.
Huguenots: prior to the Edict of Fountainbleu in 1685, Huguenots could migrate. Louis XIV was angling to end the existence of Huguenots. The Edict prohibited migration (even to a non French country) and proclaimed they could no longer exist. It wasn't ended til after New France was lost. You need a completely different Louis XIV to change all this. A different XIV likely means a lot less endless warfare, and resources now available to develop New France. Huguenots within France were quite willing to remain French. Sans persecution, there's little reason to believe they'd turn rebel anytime soon.
There is no need for Huguenots to populate New France. France had plenty of Catholic population to afford a steady stream of migrants. What was missing was the will of the people to migrate, and resources to put any real effort into the colony.
Huguenots: prior to the Edict of Fountainbleu in 1685, Huguenots could migrate. Louis XIV was angling to end the existence of Huguenots. The Edict prohibited migration (even to a non French country) and proclaimed they could no longer exist. It wasn't ended til after New France was lost. You need a completely different Louis XIV to change all this. A different XIV likely means a lot less endless warfare, and resources now available to develop New France. Huguenots within France were quite willing to remain French. Sans persecution, there's little reason to believe they'd turn rebel anytime soon.
There is no need for Huguenots to populate New France. France had plenty of Catholic population to afford a steady stream of migrants. What was missing was the will of the people to migrate, and resources to put any real effort into the colony.
unprincipled peter
Donor
no matter who was migrating, Catholic or Huguenot, a slow, steady stream is the most logical approach. The land can accommodate millions, but as you say, the colonial infrastructure can't handle a sudden mass influx of new comers. As the colony grows, so too can the number of immigrants.
I think a healthy dose of Catholic migration would be encouraged along with any Huguenot relocation to avoid New France from being too predominant Huguenot.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Along with migration, you also need to revise the seignorial land use approach, and allow a bit more local production of goods.
With just a few moderate changes, France could have made something out of New France. It doesn't seem that they even bothered to search for metals/minerals to exploit.
With just a few moderate changes, France could have made something out of New France. It doesn't seem that they even bothered to search for metals/minerals to exploit.
The best bet for New France was somewhere warmer. The winters are just so freaking cold and snowy that it really takes a lot to convince someone to stay there.
Not for nothing, the most common last name in Québec is "Tremblay".
It is not a last name in France. (Or at least it want before New France).
Trembler means "to shiver". Brrrr.
unprincipled peter
Donor
It's not all frozen tundra. The border of US/Canada is OK. Yeah, there's cold winters, but easily livable. Plus, New France included the old Northwest, and modern midwest, which is good weather/land. France also claimed Ohio/Kentucky/Tennessee, which are good country. IF the migration is early enough to beat England there, New France would have a very nice heartland.
France was subject to several severe droughts which killed millions of people. That's pretty good incentive. Louis XIV refused to consider peace an option, so the country was usually in a state of war, so migration wasn't an option.
I never said it was tundra. I'm from Canada.
I have cousins in Longueuil. Its f*cking cold. It's so cold that evictions are illegal between Nov 1st and March 31st, as is disconnecting Hydro.
And yes there was incentive to leave France. But not much to stay in Québec, if you dont like the cold. Which is why so many of them left.
Wait. Putting this and that together z are we to suggest that ... if France settles Louisiana, that colony can produce enough wheat to prevent the famines to prevent the revolution?
unprincipled peter
Donor
I wouldn't go that far, but...
upper Louisiana and the lower part of Canada are the wheat growing areas. Rice could be a thing in Lower Louisiana.
Famines in France during the years of Louis XIV - 2 big ones in mid 1690s and early 1700s - could induce migration to the New World. France was hard at war during that time (9YW and War of Spanish Succession), and thus could not spare the resources to help encourage the settlers, not to mention that England/Britain had the upper hand navally, so sailing the ocean would be a wee bit hazardous. IF though, those two avoidable wars were removed from the equation, migration would be possible.
The grains/foods would primarily feed the Caribbean colonies, and some to France. Politics may play a role in grain availability. But, yes, a New France with an agricultural industry could ease the pressure in France.
A reminder that policies which enable migration could also alter OTL. Certainly, eliminating/changing the wars of XIV would alter French history (you could see alternate offspring, or survival of offspring), so that OTL French Revolution may be butterflied. French and Indian War may be altered or butterflied. ARW may be altered or butterflied.
there is also the opinion of the Huguens to succeed in France Antarctique, having control of one of the best ports in South America (Rio de Janeiro) it is also close to the region that had most of the gold mines of otl brazil.
Even if the weather (and lack of precious metals) is a deterrent, with a population of 20 million subjects, France probably still could find more people to settle if it really wanted.
However, the weather does pose a logistical issue: it is too cold to construct buildings in the winter, so your ships must arrive in the spring or summer, so there is time to build the colonists houses before winter. That limits how many can come in a given year - especially early on. There can't be a mass shipment in a year or two, it must be a gradual thing.
Louis XIV did take this seriously during the 1663-72 period and sent a stream of settlers (including the "filles du roy") which had a very positive effect on population growth. But then the Dutch war started and he lost interest.
Last edited: